Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

While there's talk of viewer 'expectation' here, I haven't seen much mention of the possible views of the babe themselves. What about their expectations? There seems to be an assumption that if and when Ofcom is defeated, the girls will all be dropping their knickers, parting their lips and thrusting dildos back and forth in marathon hardcore sessions. For starters, not all the girls will be up for that sort of thing. One of the most popular babes there has ever been, Tara Lee, never gave in to appearing in hardcore material or posing for full frontal shots; there'll be quite a few others like her (professional, reliable, popular babes who aren't going to be dropped from the rosters and replaced just like that, even if Ofcom and the like were to rendered powerless to influence babe programming).

Another thing is that while some (maybe many) babes across the shows have had some hardcore experience and would be prepared to go further if they were allowed to, how many are honestly going to want to hammer it hardcore for the number of hours per night/per week these shows are on air for? Psyching yourself up to perform in a video, with a fixed shooting schedule and finishing date, is one thing, but doing that sort of stuff from ten at night until half five in the morning several nights a week is something else.

It also has to be pointed out (yes, I know this is going to peeve you, Stan ) that a taste for hardcore isn't necessarily shared by everyone, or even by a large majority, here. "Non-hardcore-ists," remember, tune into these shows in order to help them rub out a good one, just like the hardcore crew does, so their objections to hardcore wouldn't be coming from any sort of outraged, Whitehouse-esque killjoy angle. They'd be based on the reasonable, practical fact that hardcore doesn't get them off like the more slowly paced, gentler erotic stuff does, and they wouldn't want to see their favoured sorts of material completely elbowed out of the road in the wake of a shake up.

There's more to all of this than just aiming to neutralise the influence of dastardly big brother watchdog organisations.

Addison, no one here is making any assumptions. That is in fact what this poll is specifically designed to test - i.e. Ofcom's sweeping claim about OUR expectations. Please do not distract people from the question at hand. If you look at the results there is scope for all tastes and thus all presenters' personal limits. The last thing I would expect is for anyone to be forced to do anything against their will - including keeping their knickers on or pleasuring themselves manually - it cuts both ways you see.

(20-02-2010 16:03 )Addison Wrote:  While there's talk of viewer 'expectation' here, I haven't seen much mention of the possible views of the babe themselves. What about their expectations? There seems to be an assumption that if and when Ofcom is defeated, the girls will all be dropping their knickers, parting their lips and thrusting dildos back and forth in marathon hardcore sessions. For starters, not all the girls will be up for that sort of thing. One of the most popular babes there has ever been, Tara Lee, never gave in to appearing in hardcore material or posing for full frontal shots; there'll be quite a few others like her (professional, reliable, popular babes who aren't going to be dropped from the rosters and replaced just like that, even if Ofcom and the like were to rendered powerless to influence babe programming).

Another thing is that while some (maybe many) babes across the shows have had some hardcore experience and would be prepared to go further if they were allowed to, how many are honestly going to want to hammer it hardcore for the number of hours per night/per week these shows are on air for? Psyching yourself up to perform in a video, with a fixed shooting schedule and finishing date, is one thing, but doing that sort of stuff from ten at night until half five in the morning several nights a week is something else.

It also has to be pointed out (yes, I know this is going to peeve you, Stan ) that a taste for hardcore isn't necessarily shared by everyone, or even by a large majority, here. "Non-hardcore-ists," remember, tune into these shows in order to help them rub out a good one, just like the hardcore crew does, so their objections to hardcore wouldn't be coming from any sort of outraged, Whitehouse-esque killjoy angle. They'd be based on the reasonable, practical fact that hardcore doesn't get them off like the more slowly paced, gentler erotic stuff does, and they wouldn't want to see their favoured sorts of material completely elbowed out of the road in the wake of a shake up.

There's more to all of this than just aiming to neutralise the influence of dastardly big brother watchdog organisations.

This is a separate argument entirely. What is being discussed here is the channel's freedom to show what they want to show and what viewers want, and indeed expect to see, on an adult fta channel

If the current rules were relaxed and it became obvious that going hardcore was going to be in the economic interests of the channels then that's the road they'd go down and would employ girls happy to do it.

I don't for one moment think that would be the case though and there'll always be something for all tastes. However, the fact that adult channels aren't able to show any form of full frontal nudity and have to exist in some Play School like environment where they have to talk about "clocks" and "minkies" is a bit of a joke whichever way you look at it. This is what this poll is seeking to get across.

I think if the rules were relaxed, then the channels would only show the content that kept the telephones ringing. If that means showing hardcore content, then they should be able too.

I personally am easy with it, yes I would expect an adult related show at the very least to show fully nude content after a certain time.

But I think full hardcore should be limited to an encrypted channel(s). But we should still be given the option to be able to view hardcore, if that is our wish.

Looks like Ofcom's one complainant has voted "always exceeds my expectations". Whoever you are, what on earth are you doing visiting this site or watching these channels if they upset your sensibilities? Or perhaps this isn't what you meant?

You are of course entitled to your opinion but, I wonder if you could please enlighten us as to your true feelings?

(20-02-2010 02:12 )IanG Wrote:  

(19-02-2010 18:03 )aaron Wrote:  This poll refers to the free channels in the adult section, not the channels shown under encryption, as it would be logical to have higher expectations of encrypted and paid for material.

This is primarily about the FTA babe channels - that claim by Ofcom relates to Bang Babes.

If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?

One thing I don't get is some of the viewer expectations for these channels... If you're not a paying customer, then what are you expecting from a phone sex channel? Most of the free-to-air channels are just phone sex with adverts for other services...

This is why there are "context" issues with OFCOM and these channels in particular. The main context issue OFCOM latch onto is that casual viewers, which is most people, cannot hear what's going on through their TV. Due to this the channels, in their opinion, cannot justify stronger content being shown onscreen. Of course to most reasonable people it's bullshit, but it is what it is...

Winston_Wolfe, can you point me to where Ofcom have made such claims re passive viewers and chat channel context?

I agree this is bullshit, after all, how can Ofcom claim the content isn't justified by context if they themselves can't hear the conversation on the broadcast tapes? Indeed, as Ofcom have banned the broadcast of 'strong language' that features in the soundtrack of these chat channels then it is they that are responsible for creating this silent/unknown context that allows them to fine these channels - isn't that convenient...its a stitch-up...!

But what of those viewers that call to take part or listen-in? They alone know the full context of these shows. These channels only exist because they cater to those that actually call-in and use their other services. The context thus exists in and with the unseen presence of the customer.

Indeed, the contextual justification for the content of these shows depends on what the customer wants and what the presenter is willing to do to satisfy the customer's request.

The way it is, a good analogy might be a customer ordering a rare steak in a bistro and being served a ceasar salad with a message "Sorry, we're not allowed to serve that in here, Environmental Health say it might upset passing vegetarians...and if they spot us serving meat they'll fine us or shut us down".

Fucking charming eh?

An idea to get over the issue with ofcom and providing a harder show with full frontal would be for sky to come up with an idea with an option to purchase a new box that doesn't contain any of the 900 plus channels so that us older ones are no longer dictated to any more. I'm sure this would work and it would be sticking to the law and meet all the ofcom regulations.

(27-02-2010 03:14 )IanG Wrote:  Winston_Wolfe, can you point me to where Ofcom have made such claims re passive viewers and chat channel context?

I agree this is bullshit, after all, how can Ofcom claim the content isn't justified by context if they themselves can't hear the conversation on the broadcast tapes? Indeed, as Ofcom have banned the broadcast of 'strong language' that features in the soundtrack of these chat channels then it is they that are responsible for creating this silent/unknown context that allows them to fine these channels - isn't that convenient...its a stitch-up...!

But what of those viewers that call to take part or listen-in? They alone know the full context of these shows. These channels only exist because they cater to those that actually call-in and use their other services. The context thus exists in and with the unseen presence of the customer.

Indeed, the contextual justification for the content of these shows depends on what the customer wants and what the presenter is willing to do to satisfy the customer's request.

IanG, I've mentioned before on older threads about certain things not being public knowledge... Regulators like OFCOM will always try and "move the goalposts" to suit their agenda. You've basically "hit the nail on the head" with your reply...

However, I also stated recently that it suits most channel owners/producers/girls for things to be as they stand when it comes to free-to-air phone sex channels... As much as it would be convenient to see this situation as a "one way street" with OFCOM, the truth is it isn't... To solve problems like this effectively, you have to play "Devil's Advocate" and cover all the angles.

The irony is I've seen very similar issues with regulators/authorities in the racing industry... The case with the Government over "betting tax", which resulted in Bookmakers going "offshore", is just one of many examples...

I've slowly but surely been putting together plans for a new style channel for quite a while... The obvious issues with OFCOM have been a major "stumbling block", but on the other side of the fence, the trust issues with people in the UK adult industry is also a problem...

Hopefully, in the future, big things a gwan...

Winston_Wolfe, we're not naive as to how these channels generate income. I'm also aware that revenues from PPM hardcore streams haven't delivered anything like predicted estimates (men cum and go far too quickly ). The thing is the older all-nude, flashing and encypted XXX shows did not prompt anywhere like the number of complaints that would justify Ofcom's current position/Code.

I've just been revisiting the PIN 'research' from 2005 (very rushed and last minute). It states: "Analysis of BARB viewing data for this age group [11-17 y/o] also shows a relatively high level of viewing in the 2300– 2400 slot [26% claim to be watching in the report], which declines dramatically post midnight."

Now, oddly enough, it seems the researchers didn't ask parents at what time their children are allowed to stay up watching TV - at least it's not in the report if they did. I'd like to know what age group those under 18s viewing upto midnight fall into. If they're 16-17 then they're probably sexually active and will have firsthand knowledge of what adults see and do 'in the bedroom' (and let's be honest, many 14-15 y/o are 'at it' too). It's always concerned me why we allow people of 16 to have sex, where they will necessarily see and do all the things in consensual adult porn but, prevent them from watching consensual adult porn. It just doesn't make sense, in fact its an unnecessary restriction on their rights as legal sexually active young adults to see legal sexually explicit pornography. I know what I was upto at 16 and there's literally nothing in R18 porn, let alone on a babe channel, that I didn't experience or perform firsthand.

My point is, Ofcom's own research doesn't support a post midnight 'adult sex' ban on FTA channels, let alone encrypted subscription/PPV channels.

And perhaps more to the point, while this PIN reaserch was being conducted the babe channels and 'adult' channels were damn sight 'harder' than they are now and yet attracted nothing like the number of complaints that would suggest they were causing widespread 'harm or offence'.